Abstract
In "The Domino Theory" Professor Katz's general thesis is that the
arguments against intensionalism advanced in the last four decades are
arranged like so many dominos, since they all rest upon Quine's
arguments against the analytic-synthetic distinction in "Two Dogmas of
Empiricism". If this is the case, then they are all vitiated if Quine's
original arguments are unsatisfactory, and fall like so many dominos.
I propose to accept, if only for the sake of argument, that all the
other critiques of intensionalism which Katz mentions do ultimately
depend upon the acceptance of Quine's original strictures, although I
will express some doubt about this in the case of the indeterminacy of
translation thesis. In this paper I will concentrate on Katz's argument
against the first Quinian domino.