James Andrew Smith
Indiana University, Bloomington
I offer an interpretation of Carnap and Quine’s views on cognitive significance and insignificance. The basic idea behind their views is as follows: to judge an expression is insignificant is to recommend it not be used in or explicated into languages used to express truth-valued judgments in inquiry; to judge an expression is significant is to recommend it be used in or explicated into such languages. These judgments are pragmatic judgments, made in light of purposes for language use in inquiry. For Carnap at least, these pragmatic judgments are non-cognitive. This basic idea is only a roughly correct statement of their views. This is because the details of the scientific languages they recommend for inquiry are necessary to understand their views and the way they understand their own views. Even so, I offer two reasons to suggest that this basic idea is worthy of our consideration today. First, it provides a conception of significance that captures the natural thought that epistemological concerns can lead us to consider expressions to be insignificant without requiring an objectionable form of verificationism. Second, if we appeal also to Carnap and Quine’s pluralistic attitude toward explication, we can make a pragmatic judgment that an expression is insignificant while judging it to be significant on a distinct explication of significance fit for describing and explaining natural language.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.15173/jhap.v9i10.4743
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,599
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Question of Realism.Kit Fine - 2001 - Philosophers' Imprint 1:1-30.
The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap.Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.) - 1963 - La Salle, IL, USA: La Salle, Ill., Open Court.
Carnapian Frameworks.Gabriel L. Broughton - 2021 - Synthese 199 (1-2):4097-4126.
How Tolerant Can You Be? Carnap on Rationality.Florian Steinberger - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (3):645-668.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On Quine on Carnap on Ontology.Marc Alspector-Kelly - 2001 - Philosophical Studies 102 (1):93 - 122.
Empirical Equivalence in the Quine-Carnap Debate.Eric J. Loomis - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):499–508.
Putting the Bite Back Into 'Two Dogmas'.Paul Gregory - 2003 - Principia 7 (1-2):115-129.
Carnap and Quine on Empiricism.Robert Almeder - 1997 - History of Philosophy Quarterly 14 (3):349 - 364.
Every Dogma has its Day.Richard Creath - 1991 - Erkenntnis 35 (1-3):347-389.
Analyticity, Carnap, Quine, and Truth.Marian David - 1996 - Philosophical Perspectives 10:281-296.
Carnap and Translational Indeterminacy.William H. Berge - 1995 - Synthese 105 (1):115 - 121.
What Quine (and Carnap) Might Say About Contemporary Metaphysics of Time.Natalja Deng - forthcoming - In Frederique Janssen-Lauret (ed.), Quine, Structure, and Ontology. Oxford University Press.
On Carnap’s Views on Ontology.Willard van Orman Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Studies 2 (5):65--72.
‘Two Dogmas’ -- All Bark and No Bite?: Carnap and Quine on Analyticity.Paul A. Gregory - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (3):633–648.


Added to PP index

Total views
20 ( #544,378 of 2,462,103 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #39,748 of 2,462,103 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes