Download pdf
Epistemological Holism and Underdetermined Truth: Towards a Quinean Relativism
- 1 Columbia University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
The challenge towards the analytic-synthetic distinction is a frequently discussed topic in Quine’s works and literature surrounding Quine. The paper utilizes this challenge as a starting point to examine the broader consequences of Quine's epistemological holism and its impact on the Quinean understanding of truth. By introducing the arguments against the analytic-synthetic distinction from the Two Dogmas of Empiricism, the paper suggests that these arguments rest on salient foundations, yet the underestimation of conceptual schemes and the theory-relative qualities ascribed to truth by these arguments could compel a Quinean into accepting a relativistic position towards truth and its own ontology. This move could lead to criticisms and, more importantly, a slip into an overly skeptical account of relativism that Quine does not desire. The paper ends by arguing how Quine’s position in the Two Dogmas could be clarified to strengthen his epistemological holism against objections on these grounds.
Keywords
epistemological holism, relativism, Quine, analytic-synthetic distinction
[1]. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.
[2]. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2014). Quine and Pragmatism. In G. Harman & E. Lepore (Eds.), A Companion to W.V.O. Quine (1st ed., pp. 54-68). WILEY Blackwell.
[3]. Król, Z., & Lubacz, J. (2024). On Why Quine’s Ontological Relativity Requires Reconsideration. Found Scim, 29, 821–845.
[4]. Norris, C. (1997). Ontological relativity and meaning‐variance: A critical‐constructive review. Inquiry, 40(2), 139–173.
[5]. Quine, W. V. O. (1984). Relativism and Absolutism. The Monist, 67, 293–96.
[6]. Severo, R. P. (2008). “Plausible insofar as it is intelligible”: Quine on underdetermination. Synthese, 161, 141-165.
[7]. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press.
[8]. Quine, W. V. O. (1976). The Ways of Paradox. Harvard University Press.
[9]. Feigl, H., & Sellars, W. (1949). Readings in Philosophical Analysis. Appleton Century Crofts.
[10]. Weinert, F. (1995). The Duhem‐Quine thesis revisited. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 147-156.
[11]. Quine, W. V. O. (1975). Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World. Erkenntnis, 9, 313–28.
Cite this article
Guo,Z. (2025). Epistemological Holism and Underdetermined Truth: Towards a Quinean Relativism. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,81,156-164.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Psychology and Humanity Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).