Philo
Sophos
·com

philosophy is for everyone
and not just philosophers

philosophers should know lots
of things besides philosophy


PhiloSophos knowledge base

Philosophical Connections

Pathways to Philosophy programs

Pathways web sites

Philosophy lovers gallery

Science, arts and humanities

PhiloSophos home

home first back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 forward

Belle asked:

I've been reading up on the epistemology of Carnap and Quine. Although Carnap maintains the
analytic/ synthetic distinction, while Quine rejects it, both philosophers hold that any statement
(including analytic) is open to revision. Given this, it is unclear to me why Carnap argues for the
analytic/ synthetic distinction. Please help me illuminate his argument.

============

My take on Carnap and analytic truths is that they are those that come from considerations of logic.
Synthetic truths come from empirical data, roughly speaking. Now, a truth which comes from logic is
the result of deduction, usually (or induction on a known series, let us say), and as such follows from
premises, according to the terms defined, the operations employed, etc. Now let's take an analytic
truth like "any triangles' angles add to 180 degrees". This is provable within a particular framework,
Euclidean geometry, as we all know. But as we also all know, at this point, this truth only holds on a
plane. On the surface of a sphere, one must say (as I recall... it's been awhile), "any triangle's angles
add to more than 180 degrees" (I'm just not sure of the "any" in that quote... but I think it's correct).
And on a hypersphere (a surface of negative curvature), we must say, "any triangle's angles add to
less than 180 degrees". So the Euclidean truth must be revised, mustn't it, when one generalizes to
other surfaces than planes, to read, "any planar triangles' angles add to 180 degrees". And so it goes.
But one still can say that those truths are analytic, if that term is indeed meaningful, as Carnap
believed.

Steven Ravett Brown

For Carnap, a given statement can be analytic relative to one system or theory, but synthetic relative
to another. Quine's objection in 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' to the 'dogma' of the analytic/ synthetic
distinction hinges on the fact that we don't know which is the correct theory prior to experience. I.e.
we don't first arm ourselves with a set of concepts and then go about investigating the world.

Geoffrey Klempner