Abstract
SummaryThis paper offers a revision of the author’s previous interpretation of Neurath’s proposal for the form and content of so-called protocol sentences (first given in this journal). Now the ambition to give necessary and sufficient conditions for Neurath’s explicandum is replaced by that to provide a characterisation of central cases. Moreover, Neurath’s proposal is cast in the form of an incipient theory of scientific testimony about observations. In light of the new analysis this paper then links Neurath’s proposal to current debates about the viability of Sellars’ anti-foundationalism and compares testimony and the justification of perceptual knowledge in science and everyday life.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
