Talk:Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Philosophy: Literature / Language / Analytic / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of language
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Linguistics: Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

[Untitled][edit]

There are many spelling and grammar errors in this article. Good links, though.

Capitalisation[edit]

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)

It is capitalised because it is the name of a paper, as it appears in the body of the article. Returned to original name. Noisy | Talk 19:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the From a logical point of view collection, it is listed in the contents page with only the first letter capitalised. Where do you see it capitalised? ---- Charles Stewart 20:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the web page linked at the foot of the article. If that misrepresents the way that the article is usually published, then there may be a case for changing the way that the title is represented on Wikipedia, both in this article and wherever it is referenced. I'm in a town away from home at the moment, but if you have access to any published works that it appears in (I'd suggest more than a sample of one) then you - or even we - should go ahead and change all the references. There will need to be an appropriate comment in the body of the article, to explain that the web paged linked to is incorrect. Noisy | Talk 20:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have access to only one version, namely the 1980 revised second edition of From a logical point of view: the definitive version I suppose is the versuon that appeared in The Philosophical Review in 1951. I looked up some citations to the article, and both capitalisation variants appear. FWIW, the title appearing at the start of the article in my From a logical point of view is 'FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. It's not very important; if I get a chabce to look up the original version, I'll check, but it's OK by me to leave it as is. ---- Charles Stewart 20:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This issue is not very important, but in two more published versions, both "Dogmas" and "Empiricism" appear capitalized. For instance, in the antology by Martin Curd and J.A. Cover Philosophy of Science. The central issues, the title is "Two Dogmas of Empiricism". Lorenzo P. Gamayo 1:57, 9 Jun 2005 (GMT+2)

Carnap[edit]

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

Ineffective[edit]

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)[reply]

Name[edit]

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)[reply]

Needs Expert[edit]

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)

A Onetime Associate of Noam Chomsky's[edit]

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))[reply]