Quine's critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction undermines the special epistemic status of a priori cognition by dissolving the boundary between logical and empirical revision.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Analytic-synthetic distinction(as the philosophical concept Quine attacks): A traditional divide between two types of statements: analytic ones that are true by definition alone (like 'bachelors are unmarried') and synthetic ones that require observation of the world to verify (like 'snow is white').
Empirical revision(what replaces the fixed methodology): The ongoing process of testing your beliefs against real-world evidence and changing your mind when the evidence shows you're wrong.
Epistemic status(in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): How certain or justified we are in believing something is true. It's asking: 'Do we really know this, or are we just guessing?'
Logical revision(what Quine's thesis is about): Changing or updating the rules and basic building blocks of logic (the system we use to reason correctly).
Quine(as a proper name referring to the philosopher whose theory is being discussed): Willard Van Orman Quine was a 20th-century American philosopher who wrote about how we know things and how language works. In this statement, we're discussing one of his specific ideas about observation.
a priori cognition(Distinguished from empirical cognition, which is derived from experience and yields only comparative universality.): Cognition that is valid independently of all experience, marked by strict universality and necessity.

2 topics