This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are many spelling and grammar errors in this article. Good links, though.
Why are the "D" and the "E" in the title capitalised? Wikipedia policy is to avoid unnecessary capitalisation, and these words are not proper names. I proposeto move the article to Two dogmas of empiricism. ---- Charles Stewart 08:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Postscript: I went ahead with move already ---- Charles Stewart 08:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just wondering if this discussion could use a more thorough discussion of Carnap since Quine takes the thrust of his argument to be directed there. If such a extension is worthwhile, it might be useful to point out that Quine's arguments never really undermined Carnap's understanding of the A/S distinction.
- gericault
How can Quine's indeterminacy translation thesis be said to have rendered Strawson's argument "ineffective"? As it stands, this is just a dismissal of a claim; not an explanation as to why Quine's hallowed theory renders them ineffective. A theory is only effective of such dismissal if it is in fact very true and near uncontestable. But there is a wealth of literature against Quine's indetermination theory (BonJour (1998) springs to mind). As much as Quine would like it, philosophy doesn't render certain people or its methods "ineffective" as often as science does. There needs to be a more specific reason rather than a generalisation, that's all. -- Knucmo2 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding "W.V." before "Quine" so that readers know who this is exactly.-- jonnylocks 11:45, 10th June 2006 (EST)
Similarly, I changed the first occurrence of "Putnam" to 'Hilary Putnam." 128.194.27.116 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This page really needs help from an expert. I've been doing a report on Two Dogmas and some of the page is just incorrect, or incomplete. Quine's section on semantical rules is completely ignored. 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The comma-offset phrase found in the sentence beginning: "Jerrold Katz, a onetime associate of Noam Chomsky's, countered the arguments [...]" is a trivial appeal to (I guess you would call it) authority. Who cares who associated with whom? Unless being an associate of Chomsky is relevant to the rest of the sentence, I see no reason to include this. Was there perhaps a sentence that used to appear before that in the original source which mentioned Chomsky? ( 169.231.35.176 ( talk) 19:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC))
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are many spelling and grammar errors in this article. Good links, though.
Why are the "D" and the "E" in the title capitalised? Wikipedia policy is to avoid unnecessary capitalisation, and these words are not proper names. I proposeto move the article to Two dogmas of empiricism. ---- Charles Stewart 08:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Postscript: I went ahead with move already ---- Charles Stewart 08:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just wondering if this discussion could use a more thorough discussion of Carnap since Quine takes the thrust of his argument to be directed there. If such a extension is worthwhile, it might be useful to point out that Quine's arguments never really undermined Carnap's understanding of the A/S distinction.
- gericault
How can Quine's indeterminacy translation thesis be said to have rendered Strawson's argument "ineffective"? As it stands, this is just a dismissal of a claim; not an explanation as to why Quine's hallowed theory renders them ineffective. A theory is only effective of such dismissal if it is in fact very true and near uncontestable. But there is a wealth of literature against Quine's indetermination theory (BonJour (1998) springs to mind). As much as Quine would like it, philosophy doesn't render certain people or its methods "ineffective" as often as science does. There needs to be a more specific reason rather than a generalisation, that's all. -- Knucmo2 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding "W.V." before "Quine" so that readers know who this is exactly.-- jonnylocks 11:45, 10th June 2006 (EST)
Similarly, I changed the first occurrence of "Putnam" to 'Hilary Putnam." 128.194.27.116 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This page really needs help from an expert. I've been doing a report on Two Dogmas and some of the page is just incorrect, or incomplete. Quine's section on semantical rules is completely ignored. 04:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The comma-offset phrase found in the sentence beginning: "Jerrold Katz, a onetime associate of Noam Chomsky's, countered the arguments [...]" is a trivial appeal to (I guess you would call it) authority. Who cares who associated with whom? Unless being an associate of Chomsky is relevant to the rest of the sentence, I see no reason to include this. Was there perhaps a sentence that used to appear before that in the original source which mentioned Chomsky? ( 169.231.35.176 ( talk) 19:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC))