What is the criticism of Quine’s attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction?

ChatGPT said:

​W.V.O. Quine’s critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction, primarily articulated in his 1951 paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” has been a focal point of philosophical debate. Quine challenged the validity of distinguishing between analytic statements (true by virtue of meanings, such as “All bachelors are unmarried”) and synthetic statements (true based on empirical facts, like “It is raining outside”). He argued that attempts to define analyticity rely on notions like synonymy and necessity, which themselves lack non-circular definitions. This led him to conclude that the analytic-synthetic distinction is untenable. ​Compass+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2

In response, several philosophers have defended the distinction:​Wikipedia

  • Paul Grice and P.F. Strawson, in their 1956 article “In Defense of a Dogma,” contended that rejecting synonymy undermines the concept of meaning itself. They argued that if we can meaningfully inquire about the meaning of statements, then synonymy—and by extension, analyticity—must be coherent concepts. ​enlightenment.supersaturated.com+7Wikipedia+7Wikipedia+7
  • Hilary Putnam, in “Two Dogmas’ Revisited,” suggested that Quine conflated two separate notions: analytic truths (statements true by definition) and a priori truths (statements knowable independently of experience). Putnam maintained that while Quine’s critique challenges certain conceptions of apriority, it doesn’t necessarily dismantle the notion of analyticity. ​Wikipedia+1Wikipedia+1
  • Jerrold Katz attempted to counter Quine by proposing a theory of semantic markers and distinguishers, aiming to define analyticity based on the syntactical features of sentences, thereby avoiding the circularity Quine identified.

Despite these defenses, Quine’s critique has had a lasting impact, leading many in the philosophical community to reconsider and, in some cases, abandon the analytic-synthetic distinction. ​Philosophy Stack Exchange+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3

Favicon

Sources

4o

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.