Confirmational holism Semantic holism

the key answering question lies in going quine , attack on logical positivism. logical positivists, dominated philosophical scene entire first half of twentieth century, maintained genuine knowledge consisted in , such knowledge capable of manifesting strict relationship empirical experience. therefore, believed, linguistic expressions (manifestations of knowledge) had meaning either directly referred observable entities, or reduced vocabulary directly referred such entities. sentence s contained knowledge if possessed meaning, , possessed meaning if possible refer set of experiences could, @ least potentially, verify , set potentially falsify it. underlying this, there implicit , powerful connection between epistemological , semantic questions. connection carries on work of quine in 2 dogmas of empiricism.

quine s holistic argument against neo-positivists set out demolish assumption every sentence of language bound univocally own set of potential verifiers , falsifiers , result epistemological value of every sentence must depend on entire language. since epistemological value of every sentence, quine positivists, meaning of sentence, meaning of every sentence must depend on every other. quine states it:

all of our so-called knowledge or convictions, questions of geography , history profound laws of atomic physics or mathematics , logic, edifice made man touches experience @ margins. or, change images, science in globality force field limit points experiences...a particular experience never tied proposition inside field except indirectly, needs of equilibrium affect field in globality.

for quine (although fodor , lepore have maintained contrary), , many of followers, confirmation holism , semantic holism inextricably linked. since confirmation holism accepted among philosophers, serious question them has been determine whether , how 2 holisms can distinguished or how undesirable consequences of unbuttoned holism, michael dummett has called it, can limited.