Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Author Item Excerpt Meta data
McDowell, John
Books on Amazon
Indeterminacy I 184
Indeterminacy of the translation/Quine: the results of "conceptual sovereignty" are far from being determinable by means of scientific facts about the "empirical meaning".
I 184
McDowellVsQuine: if we reject the Third Dogma, it has fatal consequences for Quine: for his reasoning, he needs the maintenance of the dualism endogenous/exogenous, which DavidsonVsQuine also rejects.
I 189
Theories language/observation language/McDowellVsQuine: now it can be that both are actually distinguishable. Then the observation meaning of a single theoretical theorem would be indeterminate.
   But we could not derive a general meaning indeterminacy from this. If we try to do that, we are confronted with the Third Dogma.
  Then we stand in front of a borderline of the separation of languages: we push the whole meaning into the theory and let the experience speak no language at all. Then, of course, the rational relation is lacking.
We need this rational relationship, however, for Duhem's argument. This can only be of a local nature now.
  As we pave our way through the Third Dogma, we tailor Duhem's thoughts to the right size. (> Theory).
Indeterminacy/underdeterminedness/Conceptual Design/McDowell: the choice of a schema is always underdetermined by the data - requires terms that the subjects have not acquired. - This is not possible according to the strong verificationism, this equates verification with susceptibility for evidence. Conceptual design/McDowell: we need that in realistic science.

J. McDowell
Geist und Welt Frankfurt 2001

G. Evans/J. McDowell
Truth and Meaning Oxford 1977

Ev I
G. Evans
The Varieties of Reference (Clarendon Paperbacks) Oxford 1989

> Counter arguments against McDowell
> Counter arguments in relation to Indeterminacy

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX file
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-04-30