Willard Van Orman Quine

Quine and Logical Positivism 247
being established on an empiricist basis means being grounded, ultimately,
in the evidence of our senses. If the analytic-synthetic distinction
cannot be established on an empiricist basis, then it is untenable,
because philosophy does not stand separate from science.
Science is grounded in the evidence of our senses, and Quine has
arguments to show that the analytic-synthetic distinction cannot be
so grounded. This is a tenable position. But the crucial question, in
relation to the debate with Carnap, is whether it is a compelling
position. I think it is not.
For Carnap, philosophy is the logic of science. Science determines
what that logic should be, not normatively, but pragmatically, in the
sense of what maximizes our chances for scientific success. This determination
constitutes a favoring of one logic over another. What it
is to be a logic is prior to any such determination. It is how we lay
out the options for scientific language. Carnap’s principle of logical
tolerance enshrines the freedom we have to explore our options for
scientific language. But the very basis of its operation is the analyticsynthetic
distinction, by which we distinguish between science on
the one hand and logical syntax (later, also semantics) on the other.
Syntax and semantics constitute the conventions of scientific language,
which we pragmatically choose. Philosophy, as the logical
syntax (and semantics) of language, itself depends on the analyticsynthetic
distinction. At the same time, this conception of philosophy
validates the analytic-synthetic distinction: If philosophy is the
logical syntax and semantics of language, then its subject is that part
of our knowledge that is analytic.
What this analysis of Quine’s and Carnap’s positions shows is that
neither can address the other within his own conception of philosophy.
Their debate comes down, rather, to a take-it-or-leave-it standoff.
The marker of their differing conceptions of philosophy is the
analytic-synthetic distinction.
Despite the fact that within their positions there is no basis for winning
one side over to the other, the impasse can be broken by testing
each position by the criterion of success in accounting for mathematics,
the hard case for empiricism. Quine considered that holism
provided an account of mathematics as imbibing empirical content
from the confirmed theories in which it figures. Carnap espoused
holism, but not to this effect, and analyticity of mathematics is
the cornerstone of his philosophy of mathematics. The tenability
Cambridge Companions Online © Cambridge University Press, 2006