Quine on Analyticity and Other Dogmas

[@Human_Evolution-]

great question by one of the students when he asked, "what is the importance of the distinction in the first place?"

[@rememberthisfeeling]

@Lucas Davenport that's what makes it a great question

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

Without the distinction you can whatever you please 2 + 2 equals horses. Quine says the distinction can be held but as a useful rule not a metaphysical bar

[@JonSebastianF]

22:09, you mean?

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

0:18 Why does Quine care about Empiricism? 1:59 1:20 What Philosophy does 3:20 Think of Belief not as resting on foundation, but rather a Web of Belief

[@FocemmChinazatv]

Wow I love this teaching on W.V Quine

[@JonSebastianF]

_readings:_ Quine, W.V. 1951. "Two Dogmas of Empiricism".

[@muazhassan99]

Amazing channel. I would like to know a bit more on Quine on analyticity though, you said at the beginning of the video you were talking more about that, can that video be found in this channel?? it will be of great help for my essay.

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Great series

[@ImperiumSerama]

Love your videos!

[@GottfriedLeibnizYT]

39:04 A lecture about it would be great! Thanks.

[@dmitri1483]

Jay sent me here

[@notexistingnot]

Please turn on the subtitle 🙏

[@mcooper8825]

I watched 45 minutes to get to the second dogma, and they ran out of time :(

[@JonSebastianF]

39:04?

[@brandonlanglois2537]

Mattress Firm is a front

[@Quantick]

lol I can’t believe I’ve heard a mention of the mattress firm conspiracy theory so deep into KZbin 😂

[@yasminebensalah2835]

Aren't natural sciences supposed to fall under the analytic category and logic and maths to be synthetic??

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

The answer is it is no longer clear - I will do a video on this soon.

[@yasminebensalah2835]

@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 tha'd be great thanks

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@yasminebensalah2835 Here it is Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism - Kubrick Analyzed on The Metaphysics of Taste kzbin.info/www/bejne/hGi7oZiPmq95Z9E

[@9Ballr]

No. You can think of the analytic/synthetic distinction as being about types of truths. Analytic truths are, roughly speaking, true by definition. So, all triangles have three sides is true, we might say, because the very concept of a triangle (or definition of "triangle") includes that a triangle has three sides. Notice that there is a sense in which that statement would be true even if no actual triangles existed. So we don't need to know if there are any actual triangles in the world in order to know that all triangles have three sides. OTOH, synthetic truths are, roughly speaking, empirical truths about the way the world actually is. And figuring out the way the world actually is is the business of sciences like physics, biology, and psychology. We test hypotheses or theories in physics, for example, by devising and running experiments and making observations of the world, and proceed from there to revise, develop, or sometimes discard our hypotheses or theories accordingly. So, we can know that all triangles have three sides (an analytic truth) without looking at any actual triangles, but we can't know that E=mc2 (a synthetic truth) unless we have some input to begin with about the way the world actually is (like knowing that the speed of light is constant).