Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism

[Questioninggeller]

I need some advice on writing an objection to Quine's first Dogma. The first dogma is which Quine tries to rid the distinction between analytic and synthetic.

I'm in the midst of writing my obejction, which (put shortly) he only proves that there is a circular definition of analyticity...

If you can offer me advice to go further into this, it would help a lot...

Also what is another term that we know a distinction but it has a circular definition, so I can give an example of something we can distinguish but cannot fully define.

Thanks

[c4ts]

I've never read anything by Quine. Could you elaborate?

[Vorticity]

Hey, funny you should mention Quine! I was just reading about him in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach. But not about his dogmas, about which I know nothing...

I know Quine best 'cause he came up with the idea of 'Quining' a phrase. When you 'Quine' a phrase, you proceed it by its own quotation:

"A big red apple" a big red apple.

This doesn't sound very exciting at first, until you realize that you can take a non-sentence and make it into a sentence by Quining it:

"Is a phrase" is a phrase.

Pretty neat, huh? But it gets better! Remember the Epimenides paradox sentence ("This sentence is false.")? Well, you can make a sophisticated version of this in a 'Quine sentence':

"Yields falsehood when preceed by it's quotation" yields falsehood when proceeded by it's quotation.

Nifty! There are all kinds of groovy variations, like:

"Is a sentence without a subject" is a sentence without a subject.

[c4ts]

"Is a circular definition" is a circular definition.

Hmmm... that doesn't quite work.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by c4ts
I've never read anything by Quine. Could you elaborate?

His explaination is that there is a lack of clear distinction between analytic and synthetic, an example is “No unmarried man is married” (the first class) is logically true, while that as an analytic statement is “No bachelor is married” (the second class).

He states that we must presuppose analyticity to explain analytcity, thus he concluded there is not clear distinction if synthetic and analytic.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller


His explaination is that there is a lack of clear distinction between analytic and synthetic, an example is “No unmarried man is married” (the first class) is logically true, while that as an analytic statement is “No bachelor is married” (the second class).

He states that we must presuppose analyticity to explain analytcity, thus he concluded there is not clear distinction if synthetic and analytic.

How is the second statement any different than the first? A bachelor is just a kind of unmarried man. Therefore, the same logical properties of "unmarried man" apply to "bachelor." You could say "all bachelors are unmarried men" (but not necessarily the other way around).

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by c4ts
"Is a circular definition" is a circular definition.

Hmmm... that doesn't quite work.
No, its good!
Its partially self-referential, which is at the heart of Quining phrases...

You've inspired me. Here are some more:

"When Quined, does not yield a sentence" when Quined, does not yield a sentence.

"To Quine a phrase" to Quine a phrase.

"Screamed the monkey" screamed the monkey.

Better yet, you can have multiply-Quined phrases:

" "Is a phrase" is a phrase" is a phrase

Or even recursively semi- Quined phrases! Let X be the sentence:

X = The sentence "X" is infinitely long.

Then substitute X into itself:

The sentence "the sentence "the sentence "....etc...." is infinitely long" is infinitely long" is infinitely long.

I just love this stuff!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Vorticity

The sentence "the sentence "the sentence "....etc...." is infinitely long" is infinitely long" is infinitely long.

"Is giving me a headache" is giving me a headache.

'"Is redundant" is redundant' is redundant" is redundant.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by c4ts
"Is a circular definition" is a circular definition.

Hmmm... that doesn't quite work.
This also reminds me of the Windows emulator which is known as W.I.N.E. , which stands for:

W.I.N.E.
Is
Not an
Emulator

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Vorticity

This also reminds me of the Windows emulator which is known as W.I.N.E. , which stands for:

W.I.N.E.
Is
Not an
Emulator

Aarrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!!!!!! "Is language without meaning" is language without meaning.

*"head explodes" head explodes*

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by c4ts
Aarrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!!!!!! "Is language without meaning" is language without meaning.

*"head explodes" head explodes*
Oh yeah? Try this one out for size. Here is a semi-Quine due to Hofstadter:

"Est une expression qui, quand elle est precedee de sa traduction, mise entre guillemets, dans la langue provenant de l'autre cote de la Manche, cree une faussete" is an expression which, when it is preceeded by its translation, placed in quotation marks, into the language originating on the other side of the Channel, yields a falsehood.

:D :D Even if you don't speak French, I betcha you can guess what the first part says!

[Cecil]

Originally posted by Vorticity

This also reminds me of the Windows emulator which is known as W.I.N.E. , which stands for:

W.I.N.E.
Is
Not an
Emulator There's an mp3 encoder called LAME. It stands for

LAME
Ain't an
MP3
Encoder.

:D

[justsaygnosis]

Where's Franko when you need him?
He was born for this.

[Underemployed]

That reminds me of the software drivers for scanners, commonly called TWAIN drivers.

Technology
Without
An
Interesting
Name

"And there you have it," and there you have it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I only know a bit about Quine via summaries of his philosophy but given what you said I can point out two objections.

1) Quine is stating that the analytic is proven by assumning the analytic. Fine.

But then how is the synthetic established...by the synthetic or something else? In which case Quine's case is no more better then the analytics.

2) Quine seems to also be ignoring how reasoning changes after the defintions are set.

Lets take the bachelor example, true it has an empirical basis. I'm not going to argue there.

But does that mean analytical reasoning distinguishes nothing?

Lets take insects for example, we define an insect as having "three-legs" but now lets say we find a new athropod, and someone declares it an insetc, we will have to take the matter empirically and look at the new creature's legs(and other aspects) to determine whether the claim is or is not true.

However lets say we find out the creature has only 4 legs. We can now know that the creature is now by definition not an insect without even looking at the rest of it. We know in fact that anything to come with anything more or less then six legs is not an insect. (Note, I'm not being an absolutist, I realize that legs can be pulled off and mutations happen......I'm talking about being the norm of a species.)

That means we can judge events beforehand via analytical judgements and that's in part the difference between analytical and synthetic.

3) Quine uses selective example and skips over neater areas. Sure when definitions are concerned, many of times, bachelors, insects etc. There is an empirical/synethic basis.

But lets take other areas, like logic and math. A square is a four-sided shape. 1 plus 1 equals two. These things are true, and will always be true(as I fail to see even a concievable way to disprove them) however there really is no empirical/inferred basis for these claims. Their truth value and discovery did not come simply from seeing them in the world. In fact squares and numbers can differ markedly, from a shape on a computer screen to a school project made of toothpicks for sides. These truths have little to no empirical basis, none that can be pointed to as far as I can tell anyways. Perhaps Quine did go over this, but I fail to see how, and until Quine does I will fail to include all claims as "synthetic".

(Note: I am not saying that learning math in school and such is not necessary to learn math, only that the truth-value is not established via synthetic means.)

I'd like to end by saying where I agree with Quine thus far. I agree that the line between analytic/synthetic would not be quite as rigid as many philosophers have supposed. Most likely they are complentary and often times mixed. Simple evolutionary reasoning tells us this, its unlikely two totally,radically different forms of reasoning would evolve, especially one that tells us "Nothing about the actual world" but only "possible worlds". Most likely the two evolved to complement eachother and perhaps are deeply intergrated(one cannot be made without the other.)

I also think Quine has made strides into reexamaning what we mean by analytic and synthetic. I believe Kant and many philosophers got it wrong, via synthetic=new info analytic=deduced but not new info. Clearly so-called statements "true by definition" have some empirical basis and learning "things by definition" like math is new information. Also facts are hopelessly theory laden, meaning what is considered "new info" and what the "info" actually means is determined by old, analytical background knowledge. The human does not just sit by and passively absorb "synthetic" knowledge and then deduce things after the fact, since the very observations come with "deduced" interpretations.

Hope some of this is helps.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I only know a bit about Quine via summaries of his philosophy but given what you said I can point out two objections.

Hope some of this is helps.

Yes, Thanks I'm going over Strawson's defense of analycity and it is along those lines.

Thanks :)