In this essay, I present Quine’s fragmented and often forgotten views on writing history. However, this needs to be done in conjunction with an examination of his notion of science as our “total world-picture.” Quine elegantly avoids the task of specifying a demarcation criterion of science. The result is to position science as a Wittgensteinian language game that gradually expanded from its purpose of predicting our experiences and became socio-historically institutionalized set of practices. Thus, this essay has two aims; (i) I analyze Quine’s idiosyncratic, post-positivist concept of science with a particular focus on his inclusion of sciences that are traditionally labeled as soft or social. Then, (ii) I eventually indicate how Quine deals with historical inquiry. When taken together, this essay can also be read as a case study analysis of Quine’s take on all non-experimental modes of scientific inquiry, and, more broadly, his special account of naturalism and pragmatism.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michal Hubálek (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: