Abstract
Quine’s position is counted as a reductive naturalism. It overcomes both the traditional Cartesian-Kantian approach to philosophy and the theory of logical empiricism. In consequence, Quine turns for guidance to empirical science. Philosophical reflection turns out to be secondary and dependent on science, for it is the empirical sciences that are the only source of genuine knowledge. As a result, philosophy should be reduced, in Quine’s view, to the application of scientific methods to problems that more general than those raised within the sciences themselves. Quine’s position is criticized in this article both internally, for being inconsistent, and externally, from the point of view of non-reductive naturalism. The criticism primarily pertains to (a) the doctrine of physicalism, (b) the thought-experiment regarding the indeterminacy of translation, and (c) non-observability of the principles of naturalism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
