Two Dogmas of Empiricism

Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43 (1951)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact, and truth which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,446

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Two Dogmas of Analytical Philosophy.Greg Taylor - 2007 - Macalester Journal of Philosophy 16 (1):40-55.
Two dogmas of empiricism. Fifty years after.Herbert Schnädelbach - 2003 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):7-12.
Challenges to empiricism.Harold Morick (ed.) - 1972 - Belmont, Calif.,: Wadsworth Pub. Co..

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
6,125 (#696)

6 months
608 (#1,603)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Consciousness and its place in nature.David Chalmers - 2003 - In Stephen P. Stich & Ted A. Warfield (eds.), Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell. pp. 102--142.
Perceptual symbol systems.Lawrence W. Barsalou - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (4):577-660.
Anti-exceptionalism about logic.Ole Thomassen Hjortland - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (3):631-658.

View all 1210 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Quine's Monism and Modal Eliminativism in the Realm of Supervenience.Atilla Akalın - 2019 - International Journal of Social Humanities Sciences Research (JSHRS) 6 (34):795-800.

Add more references