Quine's View on Statement Revision

W. V. O. Quine, in his influential paper ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, challenged traditional philosophical views on knowledge.

Challenging Dogmas

Quine argued against the distinction between analytic statements (true by definition) and synthetic statements (true by fact). He proposed that knowledge is a holistic web, where individual statements are not evaluated in isolation but as part of a larger system.

Holism and Revision

According to Quine's epistemological holism, no statement is immune to revision. Even statements previously considered analytic or foundational could potentially be revised in light of new evidence or conflicting experiences. This means any belief, including logical or mathematical ones, could be adjusted if doing so helps maintain the overall coherence and consistency of our beliefs when faced with sensory experience.

Conclusion on Immunity

Therefore, Quine's philosophy suggests that the entire web of belief is on its own borderline with experience. When challenged by experience, it is the system as a whole, not necessarily a specific statement, that confronts the tribunal of sense. This implies that it is only by choosing to readjust some part of this system that we can avoid or reconcile with conflict. Consequently, no statement is immune to revision.