Quine's thesis of the indeterminacy of radical interpretation shows that triangulation with automata fails to fix determinate meaning no less than triangulation with creatures, undermining Davidson's exclusion criterion.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Indeterminacy of radical interpretation(as Quine's main philosophical thesis)
The idea that even if you had perfect information about how someone uses words and behaves, there could still be multiple equally valid ways to interpret what they actually mean—meaning isn't completely pinned down by the facts.
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.
Radical interpretation(Davidsonian philosophy of language)
The project of interpreting a speaker's utterances without prior knowledge of either their beliefs or the meanings of their words.
triangulation(Davidson's transcendental argument for the existence of other minds and the external world)
Davidson's concept of a three-way causal interaction between two subjects and a shared object or stimulus, held to be necessary for determinate thought and meaning